Scotland (Political Thread)

[Engaging Strategy]

Again, you're assuming Scottish independence is about logic and facts.

It's not. It NEVER was.

It's about nationalism and grabbing power for the SNP, literally nothing else, because there is nothing to gain. They'll say "Go Indy and we'll be back in the EU!" just like they did last time. The EU President even said "That's basically impossible" and it didn't matter a damn jot, they still got 45% and a majority parliment out of people saying WE'LL STILL BE IN THE EU.

Facts.

Don't.

Matter.

To.

Nats.

I'll never stop repeating that until everyone finally realises it.

I get it, my key questions are:

Will Westminster allow them another Indyref? There's a pretty solid argument that they voted in 2014 for better or worse, knowing that this might have been on the cards.

Would the SNP actually win a second Indyref? this time under the clear and unambiguous position that even if they could get into the EU they would be accepting the Euro, potentially erecting trade barriers to 80% of their exports, potentially creating a hard border between Scotland and England. With the oil price in the toilet and their public finances way outside the allowed EU accession requirements, do you not think that the 55% who voted to remain in the UK (and obviously have their heads screwed on straight) would look at that and say "no thanks"?

[RetroSicotte]

If they don't give them tghe ref, then support and drive to have one will only get worse because then the SNP will have a clearcut "THEY'RE NOT ALLOWING US TO CHOOSE" approach.

And as to your bit about winning, again you're citing facts. Irrelevant when dealing with nats. I'm sorry if I sound dismissive, because I agree with every point about why it's a bad idea, every one of them you put out I'm saying "Yes!" to (ironically...) but the SNP have damn near 50% of the country on a fanatical backing of almost cult status.

Add in the EU wishers, and it's inevitable.

[Engaging Strategy]

If they don't give them tghe ref, then support and drive to have one will only get worse because then the SNP will have a clearcut "THEY'RE NOT ALLOWING US TO CHOOSE" approach.

And as to your bit about winning, again you're citing facts. Irrelevant when dealing with nats. I'm sorry if I sound dismissive, because I agree with every point about why it's a bad idea, every one of them you put out I'm saying "Yes!" to (ironically...) but the SNP have damn near 50% of the country on a fanatical backing of almost cult status.

Add in the EU wishers, and it's inevitable.

I can see where you're coming from. Yes, the nats are in all likelihood a lost cause at this point. That means if there's to be a second IndyRef the UK needs to win over those "EU wishers" which means getting a deal that involves single market access and protects as much of what we currently have as possible. In my view, that's the "Norway Option", EEA through EFTA. Emphasis should be placed on getting Scotland to "wait and see" on the UK's new status, and making sure we appear to be including plenty of Scottish and Northern Irish input. That way they can't paint it as some "Westminster stitch-up" because they're a big part of Westminster now!

If we get the SNP involved and win some important symbolic things for Scotland they'll find it much harder to turn around and say the deal's bad; and if they refuse to take part in the negotiations then they're obviously not defending Scotland's interests.

Just my thoughts on how HMG could decide to play it.

[WhitestElephant]

The SNP want independence no matter what, even to the detriment of their own country. Facts are merely an inconvenient truth.

The SNP take every opportunity to point out the political differences between Scotland and England (I.e Trident, Austerity and the EU), with much success. But ultimately, there are no two nations of people more alike than England and Scotland. The similarities tower over the few petty differences between us - but this message fails to reach people. Why is that? And why is it always the SNP holding the monopoly on the political narrative? This needs to change.

Despite the above, I think it is an unlikely possibility Scotland will vote YES in Indyref2. We had 55% come out in support of the United Kingdom in 2014 and we wont so easily loose those people to the insanity of the SNP. Independence didn't make sense in 2014 and it makes even less sense now.

Polls since the 2014 Indyref have shown a consistent lead for staying in the UK. If this continues, there wont even be an Indyref 2.

[Jdam]

The SNP want independence no matter what, even to the detriment of their own country. Facts are merely an inconvenient truth.

And done, if they cared about the people of Scotland they would wait to see what leaving the EU does to them but nope they picked the first opportunity given to them.

[Little J]

Question.

If She gets her way and a new ref' was won. They leave the UK, EU says sod off, there's no oil money (and not much oil left anyway) so economy is in the gutter... What happens now?

Obviously its our fault, but do they have another ref' to get back in the UK?

[Galloglass]

If Scotland leaves there is no "UK" left to return to.....The Union IS the UK of "Great Britain" comprised of England (incorporating Wales) and Scotland......Ireland was simply an "addendum" in 1801.

[SKB]

If Scotland leaves there is no "UK" left to return to.....The Union IS the UK of "Great Britain" comprised of England (incorporating Wales) and Scotland......Ireland was simply an "addendum" in 1801.

'The Kingdom Of Great Britain" could be an alternative name. There would still be a Kingdom south of the border on the island of Great Britain, which by the way, is a geographic name for the actual island.

Unfortunately, the abbreviation would be K.G.B.

[FuNsTeR]

I quite like the idea of the old roman province of Britannia that would be basically what we would be left with if the jocks and irish have their independence

[Pseudo]

If Scotland leaves there is no "UK" left to return to.....The Union IS the UK of "Great Britain" comprised of England (incorporating Wales) and Scotland......Ireland was simply an "addendum" in 1801.

During the 2014 referendum I suggested that the rUK should rename itself as The United Kingdom of Greater Britain and Northern Ireland because the greater (as in larger) part of Britain would be in the union. At the time it was a playful swipe at some of the more vociferous Secessionists I was acquainted with. Now it's a suggestion that feels deeply ironic.

[WhitestElephant]

[Self deleted]

[SKB]

Btw, Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t have the power to call a referendum; only the UK Parliament does. She likes to pretend she's Prime Minister or President of Scotland, but she is only really just a regional governor with the title of 'First Minister'.

It is interesting to note that the sturgeon is a “royal” fish and when captured in British waters, it falls within the prerogative of the Crown. Does this mean that Sturgeon could be arrested for treason on account of her desire to break up the United Kingdom?

[RetroSicotte]

Btw, Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t have the power to call a referendum; only the UK Parliament does. She likes to pretend she's Prime Minister or President of Scotland, but she is only really just a regional governor with the title of 'First Minister'.

Irrelevant. If she wants to call one, she can call one. Because if the UK Gov denies it, then the SNP have a massive "THEY'RE TRAPPING US" routine to build ever more powerful support through opposition.

[bobp]

Would Scotland have to be independent from the UK to negotiate membership of the EU.

[SKB]

Would Scotland have to be independent from the UK to negotiate membership of the EU.

Yes, because UK membership of the EU was achieved in 1973 as one sovereign state, the United Kingdom, not as four individuals; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[bobp]

So if they quit the UK and find out they cant join the EU they will have a problem, especially if a lot of Scottish Industry, moves South as well. Meanwhile over a million people have signed a petition for a second Referendum for the UK. Can the politicians afford to ignore the will of the people to get their own selfish ways?

[SKB]

A second EU referendum would require Commons and Lords debate, Commons and Lords approval, then another Referendum Act to be passed. It would be very unlikely a second referendum would be approved so soon after the 23rd June one.

Plus, it would be more likely that angry pro-Europeans would vote in higher numbers than those voters content with the existing result. It would be an unfair and unbalanced referendum. A second referendum is just "bad loser" syndrome from the pro Europeans.

[R686]

Plus, it would be more likely that angry pro-Europeans would vote in higher numbers than those voters content with the existing result. It would be an unfair and unbalanced referendum. A second referendum is just "bad loser" syndrome from the pro Europeans.

got to agree with that, it would be very loaded towards staying and prejudice to get people off there ass because they didn't in the first place, no one to blame but themselves.

[RetroSicotte]

That petition won't cause another EU referendum, however what it might do is help push the inevitable Scottish referendum to be a 60% minimum requirement for the changing option, in that case "Yes", to win, as referendums always should be.

2014 and 2016 are fantastic examples of why 50/50 referendums are a dumb as hell concept. Because you end up with half the country being screwed with no way back and splitting everyone in it. Significant required majority is a required thing for a bloody reason.

[Pseudo]

That petition won't cause another EU referendum, however what it might do is help push the inevitable Scottish referendum to be a 60% minimum requirement for the changing option, in that case "Yes", to win, as referendums always should be.

2014 and 2016 are fantastic examples of why 50/50 referendums are a dumb as hell concept. Because you end up with half the country being screwed with no way back and splitting everyone in it. Significant required majority is a required thing for a bloody reason.

I prefer 50.01% of the eligible electorate than a 60% majority based on any turnout, but otherwise agree with you.

[Halidon]

If Scotland leaves there is no "UK" left to return to.....The Union IS the UK of "Great Britain" comprised of England (incorporating Wales) and Scotland......Ireland was simply an "addendum" in 1801.

'The Kingdom Of Great Britain" could be an alternative name. There would still be a Kingdom south of the border on the island of Great Britain, which by the way, is a geographic name for the actual island.

Unfortunatley, the abbreviation would be K.G.B.

How about: federalize the nation into 3 or 4 constituent States, such as the Kingdoms of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and England. Then name the federation as "The United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Wouldn't have to stop using "UK," wouldn't have to design a new flag, wouldn't even have to replace all the signs right away.

[SKB]

UK will never accept federalisation. That's why we just had a referendum to get out of an EU which is determined to form a federal union of member states.

The Union flag won't have to change anyway, its not an official national flag of the UK.

No flag act has ever been passed in Parliament to make the Union Flag the official flag of the UK because the UK is not a country, its a sovereign state of Kingdoms, countries and provinces. The Union Flag is currently used as a makeshift "national flag" in place of an actual official one. National flags are a relatively new concept which became popular after foreign revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries which used military colours and banners as national symbols of revolt and revolution.

The Union Flag doesn't belong to the people or Parliament, its actually a Royal Banner which belongs to the Crown, but is used by the people and Parliament with consent from the monarch. The Union Flag was designed to symbolise the union of Scottish and English Crowns in 1603, it was specifically created as a naval flag to identify the Kings ships at sea. A naval flag is often called a "Jack", which is probably why the Union Flag is nicknamed the "Union Jack".

In 1707, the Scottish and English Parliaments were politically joined into one Parliament and "Great Britain" was created. The King's Union Flag was assumed by the population through it's common usage to be the "national flag" of the new "Great Britain", but the Union Flag was still a Royal Banner.

Today, the Union Flag is still usually only officially flown on special national days and Royal birthdays. This is why its rare to see a Union Flag flying around the UK. In London, its common to see it, because the flag is used as a brand of the UK/London for visiting tourists.

If Scotland left the UK and retained the Queen (and her successors) as their head of state, the UK's Union Flag (which belongs to the Crown, not the people or Parliament) would still retain Scotland's saltire in it and be used in the UK. But if Scotland becames a republic and abolished its monarchy as head of state, then a new Union Flag would need to be designed for the Crown and for the UK to fly as its "national flag".

[Galloglass]

Well SKB......As I said before the Referrendum..."Careful what you wish for".....Redesigning flags is a bit like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic if Holyrood jumps in the next few months "federalisation" may not even be on offer. To preserve the "UK" the best option would be to negotiate Sco/NI staying in the EU while Eng/Wal leave......I.m sure there would be a lot of support for that in the EU.

[SKB]

Scotland can keep London too if they want it, full of left-wing socialists and self-entitled millennials. Dreadful place.

[Galloglass]

Smiley.....The headquarters of the "Corporate State"......Don't think Scotland would take it SKB.